Ukraine Invasion - Please do not post videos showing attacks/similar

Status
Not open for further replies.
Ah yes, the west is obviously great for funding weapons to the rebels (significant numbers being fundimentalists we were fighting in Iraq) while Putin is evil for funding the government... A perfect example of the influence issue both sides are playing, without giving a **** about the people of the country affected.

It doesn't matter either way now, the power vaccum has been created and the people living there will have moved from a comfortable life to dozens of years of misery. Instead of putting our east/west differences aside and sorting out the actual problem... Go West! (And also Go Russia!)
 
Amp34 said:
No, but you've just pointed out what I've been saying. Of the multiple atrocities in Africa we (the UK) were involved in one (justified) campaign. That's it. How many campaigns have we been involved in, either militarily or (vocally) diplomatically in the middle east and north Africa (where Russia generally happens to have more influence)?

There have been a few legitimate campaigns we have been a part of, however many that are not legitimate.
Click to expand...

Not really. Africa is three times the size of Europe let alone the Middle East, with many places that are very inaccessible. There's no point intervening if you aren't going to be able to achieve your goals - the US learnt this lesson to its cost by intervening in Somalia. If we're including diplomacy then of course there are many times more interventions in Africa - strange how the US intervened in a place that wasn't proposing to buy oil in gold ducats.
 
scorza said:
Not really. Africa is three times the size of Europe let alone the Middle East, with many places that are very inaccessible. There's no point intervening if you aren't going to be able to achieve your goals - the US learnt this lesson to its cost by intervening in Somalia. If we're including diplomacy then of course there are many times more interventions in Africa - strange how the US intervened in a place that wasn't proposing to buy oil in gold ducats.
Click to expand...

Where did I mention oil and gold? ATS is that way >>>

Or more likely you appear to be mistaking me for oulton...

Sorry, I didn't realise we invaded the middle east... Africa is made up of many nations, many of which have individual problems, much like the middle east. What is currently happening in the middle east is very similar to what was happening in Africa 30 years ago. Its widely agreed that many of the problems in Africa now are caused by the interference of the west and Russia in the 60s and 70, using African nations as proxies for influence.

With regards to Somalia, libya is rapidly becoming more like it every day. Iraq isn't doing much better... Afghanistan is reasonable, but we are only now removing the last of our troops, it'll be interesting to see how that goes in the next 5 years.
 
Zethor said:
If I heard this from a Russian who has restricted access to informantion and who was indoctrinated by years of propaganda in the Soviet system, I would understand it. Coming from you, not so much. We're all as bad as each other?! What a sick joke. If Britain is so bad, pack your bags and take a trip to Dagestan, for crying out loud! Then tell me we're all as bad as each other.

The West is the light of democracy and hope as there is currently no alternative to the Western model for achieving freedom, prosperity and fair leadership representation. I don't buy the exceptionalism bullsh*t of the neoconservatives, I'm not advocating a crusade in the name of liberty nor do I think the actions taken by the West are altruistic.

My point is very simple: being under the sphere of influence of the the West is much, much better than being under the sphere of influence of an autocracy such as Russia. The people of Ukraine would benefit from going the way of Poland, not that of Belarus and they shouldn't have to pay for their choice with a part of their territory.
Click to expand...

I mostly(*) agree with you, but there's a caveat - what makes the Crimea Ukranian? It was conquered by Russian, partly depopulated by Russia, mostly repopulated by Russians and currently inhabited mostly by Russians. Putting it under Ukranian administration was a symbolic gesture that merely moved it from administration by one part of the USSR to administration by another part of the USSR.

Without Crimea, Ukraine is in a better position to move closer to the west (socially and politically, not geographically :) ).






* I think that describing the west as "the light of democracy and hope" is going too far. "the glow of partial democracy and more realistic hope", perhaps. Or, to paraphrase an idea made famous by Winston Churchill, "the worst form of government except for all those other forms that have been tried from time to time".[FONT=Arial, Geneva][/FONT]
 
scorza said:
I see that Iraq got invaded, Libya experienced a popular uprising that displaced the government there, Syria experienced a popular uprising that thus far has not displaced the government there and has turned into a nasty civil war. The only pattern I see here is that eventually brutal dictatorships come to a violent end.
Click to expand...

My eyes..... are burning.....
 
It's all a dangerous game of who will not lose face now, like a bunch of drunk idiots facing off in a bar. Obama and the EU tried to get Ukraine onside by buying him drinks, Ukraine had his drink spilled by Putin, Obama the EU and now old boy Nato join in telling Putin to buy Ukraine another beer. They are all stood facing off like lumbering drunks, chests puffed out and eyes red from the effort, Ukraine in the middle not knowing when the first punch will come and floor him for good. The rest of the pub (world) sits by watching these idiots face off over nothing much hoping the whole pub does not get wrecked for the sake of saving face.
 
scorza said:
Is this proof that the Kiev snipers were Russian trained troops?

I for one would be shocked to find out that it was the Ukrainian state under Yanukovych that was behind the killings, and not a bunch of **** heads who go around spray painting swastikas.
Click to expand...

Initial Ukrainian government enquiry has backed the above and found that it was members of a special Berkut police squad who were the Maidan snipers. Three members of the unit are already under arrest. Good news

Edit - oops forgot link: http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-europe-26868119
 
Last edited:
scorza said:
Initial Ukrainian government enquiry has backed the above and found that it was members of a special Berkut police squad who were the Maidan snipers. Three members of the unit are already under arrest. Good news
Click to expand...

Now we need to find out who ordered them and whether the order was as explicit as randomly shoot protestors. Considering the violence and deaths of police officers from the previous clash it's reasonable to assume they were meant to protect the police and it got out of hand... On the other hand the president could have ordered a shoot to kill policy of random protestors for intimidation, that's probably fairly unlikely however.
 
Angilion said:
I mostly(*) agree with you, but there's a caveat - what makes the Crimea Ukranian? It was conquered by Russian, partly depopulated by Russia, mostly repopulated by Russians and currently inhabited mostly by Russians. Putting it under Ukranian administration was a symbolic gesture that merely moved it from administration by one part of the USSR to administration by another part of the USSR.

Without Crimea, Ukraine is in a better position to move closer to the west (socially and politically, not geographically :) ).

* I think that describing the west as "the light of democracy and hope" is going too far. "the glow of partial democracy and more realistic hope", perhaps. Or, to paraphrase an idea made famous by Winston Churchill, "the worst form of government except for all those other forms that have been tried from time to time".[FONT=Arial, Geneva][/FONT]
Click to expand...

The Baltic states have regions inhabited by Russians. Moldova has that too and the majority of its population consist of Romanians. Romania has areas where Hungarians represent the majority. There are plenty of Germans in Hungary. And so on. It's the same all over Eastern Europe and the Balkans so if each nation started campaigns to protect the "brothers outside the border", we'd go back to where we were pre WWI. Russia's move is exactly that: a 19th century style annexation.

International relations have evolved since then, when is the last time another country annexed foreign territory? Even if Crimeea is lost, the West's response must be severe enough to prevent this from happening in the future.
 
scorza said:
Libya experienced a popular uprising that displaced the government there
Click to expand...

Really? I could have sworn that the rebels were outnumbered by loyalists and only managed to win because NATO was acting as their air force, flying out ahead of them bombing all resistance to dust so they could advance unhindered, hell we even disabled Gadaffi's motorcade so they could capture him before giving him a fair trial, no wait fair trial isn't the right phrase, oh yeah summary execution!
 
Amp34 said:
Now we need to find out who ordered them and whether the order was as explicit as randomly shoot protestors. Considering the violence and deaths of police officers from the previous clash it's reasonable to assume they were meant to protect the police and it got out of hand... On the other hand the president could have ordered a shoot to kill policy of random protestors for intimidation, that's probably fairly unlikely however.
Click to expand...

The report names a Maj Dmytro Sadovnyk as the commander of the unit. One would presume he wouldn't take it on himself to shoot protestors dead though, he would have been ordered to by someone.
 
Perhaps, but was the order to shoot random people or an order to help protect the police, which then spiralled into what we saw...
 
ubersonic said:
Really? I could have sworn that the rebels were outnumbered by loyalists and only managed to win because NATO was acting as their air force, flying out ahead of them bombing all resistance to dust so they could advance unhindered, hell we even disabled Gadaffi's motorcade so they could capture him before giving him a fair trial, no wait fair trial isn't the right phrase, oh yeah summary execution!
Click to expand...

By loyalists do you mean the armed forces who didn't defect, and mercenaries bought and paid for? Yeah what happened to Gadaffi wasn't ideal, but no-one should shed a tear for him - how many people do you think were summarily executed by his regime?
 
And by rebels you mean the tribes not aligned to Gadaffi (which is why some of the military defected)... Somehow the west ended up taking side in tribal warfare...

It turned out well though, it is certainly not a country of multiple tribal factions blowing each other up...
 
Amp34 said:
And by rebels you mean the tribes not aligned to Gadaffi (which is why some of the military defected)... Somehow the west ended up taking side in tribal warfare...

It turned out well though, it is certainly not a country of multiple tribal factions blowing each other up...
Click to expand...

I'm not sure what your point is here? Should we not intervene in conflicts if tribal people weren't involved? Weren't you just a few posts ago criticising "the West" for not intervening in Africa where most (if not all) people belong to one tribe or another.

Libya might not be perfect, but I'd argue it's better as at least they have hope of a better future now, rather than the certainty of repression under the Gaddafi dynasty.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top Bottom